THE £100 CHALLENGE

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2713, 22 June 1925, Page 6

THE £IOO CHALLENGE

Father Lynch In Reply

(To the Editor)

Sir, —Permit me to set down in chonological order the history of my challenge to Mr Mander, and of his acceptance of the same together with the request for “a committee of open-minded men to judge the evidence.” June 3: Challenge to Mr Mander wherein I invited him to join with me in the selection of "an Independent board of competent judges to be nominated by both of us.” June 4: Mr Mander accepted the challenge, but with regard to the judges wrote as follows: I am in Palmerston only once a week, and I do not know many people here. Will Mr Lynch therefore propose a committee of open-minded. men to judge this evidence?” Herein and hereby Mr Mander requested me to nominate a committee. June 5; I wrote to "Times” expressing my pleasure that Mr Mander had accepted my challenge. Thereupon followed the nomination of a committee as Mr Mander had requested. I refrained from any further move in the matter, because the burden of supporting by authentic evidence his dishonouring charge rested on Mr Mander. June 16: Mr Mander, ignored his public engagement to submit his evidence to a seieejt committee, and appealed in triumphant terms for a decision “to the citizens of Palmerston North,” although he claimed in unmistakable language that he had won a smashing victory. June 17; I published a letter pointing out that Mr Mander had thereby acted dishonourably, that a committee had been nominated a week before. His duty was to inquire about this. June 18: Mr Mander named a deputy to act on his behalf in the matter of the committee, and with power to accept or reject the members of the nominated committee. June 19: Mr Mander’s deputy "cordially” accepted what he Inaccurately named "the appointment” of the committee. Of course, he meant to write “the appointed” committee, “namely,” etc. Now the committee nominated by me was subject to Mr Mander’s revision or rejection. Hence it is quite inaccurate to suggest that I appointed the- committee. Mr Mander always held the right of “challenging” any one or all of the nominated (not appointed) commiteee. Hence a discerning public will be able to see the serious misrepresentation and ugly Insinuation contained in the letter publisher) (June 19) by Mr Mander’s deputy. He writes: “The Informality of having omitted to consult the other party in the matter of the appointments is waived, thus conceding to the reverend gentleman his own tribunal.” Observe the gross misrepresentation set forth In the words, “omitted to consult the other party in the matter of appointments.” One wonders whether this writer knows the difference in moaning between nomination and appointment. Note also the ugly insinuation contained in the words, “conceding to the reverend gentleman his own tribunal.” One does not need to emphasise the obvious purpose of this evident poisoning of the wells. I am. etc., E. T. LYNCH.